Talk:Ammon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greek mythology[edit]

Ammon is linked to from Greek gods, but no mention of it is made in the Ammon article.

How many Gods are there[edit]

Well, you start to raise an interesting question (though it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this article). How many definitions of "god" are there? rowley (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-religious sources for this?[edit]

Are there any sources for any of this history that aren't ultimately derived from Hebrew scripture? ⟳ausa کui × 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read past the first couple of screens, the article mentions that the Ammonites were known to the Assyrians in their records, and to other neighbouting peoples. Nobody disputes that the Ammonites or Ammonite language was historical. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'm trying to find citations for that that aren't from Deuteronomy or whatever. ⟳ausa کui × 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little hint on where to look: "Citations are usually found at the very bottom of the article." ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked there. There is one citation in this article that isn't based on Hebrew scripture, and it doesn't support this claim. Am I missing something? ⟳ausa کui × 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are. Which claim are you referring to? That the Ammonites actually existed and were not made up out of thin air?

Here, I'll make it easier for you to find the links: Here are some artifacts showing the Ammonite language:

The article also notes they are mentioned as living by various historians as Josephus and Justin Martyr, if you read it carefully.

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here we have, respectively: An evangelical website that distributes "Witness cards", the website of the King of Jordan (a Muslim theocracy that obviously has a political reason to maintain religious mythology like this), and some guys Geocities webpage. Surely if there is legitimate scholarly literature that documents the factual accuracy of Old Testament history, someone could find it. ⟳ausa کui × 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Kurkh Monolith ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing this out: that article is also very badly in need of sourcing its claims. ⟳ausa کui × 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted external links[edit]

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think Ammon himself ever had any Genetic disorders?[edit]

I was just wondering as i heard that he came about because his mother had him by having sex with her father,Lot, aka incest. And as i heard that if you were in a similar situation like him (having his father also being his grandfather as well!) you might as well have bad and/or severe genetic disorders, and as my father put it, he might as well been a dummy! So do you think so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.35.175 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is as poignantly ironic a bit of discussion commentary as I've ever read in Wikipedia — possibly in the entire Web. rowley (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"collectively"[edit]

Quote:

According to the biblical account, Genesis 19:37-38, both Ammon and Moab were born to Lot and his two daughters in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and collectively the Moabites were referred to as the children of Lot.

Don't you mean that, collectively, BOTH Ammonites and Moabites were known as the Children of Lot? rowley (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's what was meant. It's fixed now. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity[edit]

The dictionary is not a reliable source for ancient history. Please find something better. causa sui× 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'In Islamic traditions' section[edit]

I removed the “In Islamic traditions” section which stated: “In Sudan, there is a Muslim tradition that the Ammonites are found in Jabal Barkal. They are the descendants of 'Ammūn (Ammon) the son of Nabi Lūt ("Prophet Lot").” This statement is unsourced and seems to be based on an error (i.e. that of conflating the descendants of worshipers of Amun an ancient Sudanese/Egyptian god with the nation of Ammon, a people who worshiped the god Milcom/Molech and occupied an area east of the Jordan river).

BrooklynHabiru (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

Template:unreliable sources was added to the article. What sources are not reliable? patsw (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, only 11 months later! :-) I think it's important that the Bible, and secondary sources that rely primarily or exclusively on the Bible, not be used as a citation to support statements that read as if they are historical fact. Also, using direct citations to scripture in the article likely constitutes original research, as I'm sure we are all aware of the vast literature on which translation is the most authentic and which interpretation captures the message of the scriptures. The secondary sources on the Bible should support statements in the article only about what the Bible says, and not what is historically true. The Bible itself should not be used as a citation at all except for direct quotations (naming the translation used). I'm not familiar with prior discussion on the reliability of the Jewish Encyclopedia and Jewish Antiquities, but I have not researched that yet. Citations to the website of the King of Jordan are unacceptable and should not be used at all.

Many changes are necessary to bring the article into alignment with these policies. I think we can start with the diagram. The caption needs to be changed or the diagram removed entirely. The next place I would turn my attention would be removing or reworking the stretches of prose where the content is cited directly to the Bible. This statement is particularly inappropriate: "Their murder of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:22 - 26 ; Jeremiah 40:14) was a dastardly act." I think this is a good starting point. --causa sui (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with everything you stated here. What I ask—as does user patsw, apparently—is that you stop tagging the entire article as unreliably sourced. Let's try addressing and fixing specific issues, as we're doing now.
How do you think the map caption should read? Also, I thought it was Wikipedia policy to assume good faith when it comes to images created by Wikipedians, rather than to require sources (as you did for the caption many months ago). Has that image policy changed? Did it exist at all?
"Their murder of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:22 - 26; Jeremiah 40:14) was a dastardly act." That's certainly very biased. A ref is actually given for that, viz. bibler.org, which attributes the content to ISBE (1915). SamEV (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section heading is In the Bible not In History. This section and the sources cited within it are not making historical claims. If you believe a claim is being using an unreliable source, then be specific. patsw (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about the time when Babylon ruled?[edit]

Arik1111 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patah Qatan[edit]

In the recent revert, User:יבריב changed the first letter of the name "Ammon" to Ô in modern Hebrew. The argument given by the editor is, "This is patach qatan, it makes an “aw” sound, which ‘ô’ transliterated in IPA."

What? Is there some kind of patah qatan in modern Hebrew that I somehow missed learning about? Does any source, ever, use ô to represent patah? Alephb (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map is beyond repair[edit]

The discussion is more advanced at Talk:Edom#Territory: historical evolution; map deeply flawed and had also been started at Talk:Moab#MAP is so bad. The map is SO substandard, flawed and misleading that it absolutely needs to be removed. The WP user is better off without. Arminden (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map contradicts the text, article useless[edit]

"Ammon...nation...occupying the east of the Jordan River, between the torrent valleys of Arnon and Jabbok...maintained its independence...10th to 7th centuries BCE." Says the text. The map however shows all the Jordan Valley there and even a stretch of the plateau to the east as part of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) - in 830, so in the 9th c. BCE! Either the deifinition of Ammon is wrong, or the map. Both can't be right. And that's a fundamental flaw, which renders the article useless, as one is left wondering if to believe anything at all. Arminden (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is closely related to this one: Talk:Moab#Where does Moab end and Ammon begin? Map not helpful. Maybe we should concentrate the discussion (if anyone wants to contribute) on only one of the pages. Arminden (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing non-existing citations[edit]

"The Ammonites received little historical mention from contemporaries through the Persian and early Hellenistic periods.[citation needed]"

It is impossible to cite non-existing sources. Whomever asked for citation needs to remove the citation needed, please. This is similar to double-negative. One cannot prove a vacuum. I have no ownership of this article. This is merely a humorous distraction to the reader. 67.233.183.5 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All one needs to support a statement such as this is a scholarly source saying as much. Since that is clearly absent, I have removed the offending passage. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammon&oldid=1195692947"